Sexual Statism

The decline of the male economy — and of fatherhood — arises less from the empowerment of women than from the government’s usurpation of the family.

By Stephen Baskerville

In “The End of Men,” the cover story of the July/August Atlantic, Hanna Rosin describes “how women are taking control of everything.” Suggesting that “the economics of the new era are better suited to women,” Rosin believes the fair sex are winning the struggle for the survival of the fittest. In what is apparently cause for celebration, she writes, “three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men” in the ongoing Great Recession. “The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance.” She contends that the economic crisis “merely revealed—and accelerated—a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years.”

TheAtlantic used the same issue to ask, “Are Fathers Necessary?” Pamela Paul cites a widely publicized study purporting to prove that fathers are harmful in rearing children and that lesbians do it better. The study is politics camouflaged as social science—its authors acknowledge that the parenting virtues they extol are defined “in part in the service of an egalitarian ideology.” Their message echoes Rosin’s: within the home, as in the national economy, men are unreliable at best and pathological at worst. TheAtlantic assures us that the decline of men is the product of impersonal forces against which we are powerless to respond, even if we wished to—which apparently we do not.

Rosin, whose essay is #1 on the magazine’s “Biggest Ideas of the Year” list, certainly identifies an important trend. But the phenomenon she describes is the result not of inexorable social forces but of conscious political decisions. The end of men is the consequence of the most profound trend in public life today: the sexualization of politics and the politicization of sex.

The emergence of sexual politics has elicited strikingly little critical treatment. Yet it represents the most radical change in the nature of government in modern times. The economic effects are only symptoms. More far-reaching are the vast shifts in political power at every level. Feminist ideology pervades every item on the public agenda: not just “women’s issues” like abortion but everything from gun control (think of the “Million Mom March”) and DWI laws (Mother Against Drunk Driving) to foreign policy (Code Pink). “Women have the most to gain and the most to lose in the climate crisis,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed during the Copenhagen conference. “The impacts are not gender-neutral… . Women feel the consequences first.” Not an issue in public life has not been “gendered.”

The transformation of society wrought by sexual politics is most readily apparent where Rosin begins her article: with what she calls the “matriarchy” of the inner cities. Government policies produced this matriarchy: the men who are “increasingly absent from the home,” as Rosin writes, have been removed by welfare agencies and courts. The women are “making all the decisions” in inner-city households because the men have been forced out and government has usurped the role of father and husband, providing protection and income directly to the women and children. This produces in urban America not a “working class,” as Rosin terms it, but a class of government dependents whose living arrangements have been engineered by state officials.

As single motherhood spreads from the lower to the middle classes—among whom it is growing fastest—so does Rosin’s matriarchy. In the suburbs as in the cities, it is promoted by government machinery originally justified as helping the poor: child-care services, care for the elderly, public education, and publicly controlled healthcare.

Rosin insightfully observes that “the U.S. economy is in some ways becoming a kind of traveling sisterhood: upper-class women leave home and enter the workforce, creating domestic jobs for other women to fill.” This is an economic bubble about which G.K. Chesterton long ago warned. “The whole really rests on a plutocratic illusion of an infinite supply of servants,” he wrote, “Ultimately, we are arguing that a woman should not be a mother to her own baby, but a nursemaid to somebody else’s baby. But it will not work, even on paper. We cannot all live by taking in each other’s washing, especially in the form of pinafores.”

Like the recently burst bubbles in banking and housing, this one is a creation of state regulation. It reveals the trajectory of the new sexual politics: not toward eliminating gender roles—which the welfare state has not done and can never do—but toward politicizing and bureaucratizing feminine ones.

While elite feminists did assume previously male occupations, many more women have entered the workforce in professionalized versions of traditional homemaker roles. This has transformed childrearing and other domestic tasks from private family matters into public, communal, and taxable activities, necessarily expanding the size and power of the state and leading to the creation of vast bureaucracies to oversee public education and social services.

These are precisely the professions now being expanded by the Obama administration’s massive stimulus expenditures. The effect is to amplify the intrusion of the state into the home—indeed, the displacement of the home by the state. For as feminists point out, the feminine functions were traditionally private. Professionalizing feminine roles has therefore meant institutionalizing in government bureaucracies responsibilities that were once characteristic of private life. The politicization of children and the usurpation of parental rights under the guise of child protection are the clearest manifestations of this.

Fathers have been marginalized, and their lives are ever more directly administered by the state. They are not simply “absent,” as Rosin writes—they are increasingly likely to be under the control of the judicial and penal systems. Rosin’s article provides a telling example of a particularly state-feminist form of punishment now meted out to men: therapy.

None of the 30 or so men sitting in a classroom at a downtown Kansas City school have come for voluntary adult enrichment. Having failed to pay their child support, they were given the choice by a judge to go to jail or attend a weekly class on fathering…. This week’s lesson…involve[d] writing a letter to a hypothetical estranged 14-year-old daughter named Crystal, whose father left her…

What is clear from Rosin’s account is that the therapy, like the penal system, has been designed less to punish the alleged crime than to psychologically recondition men. The class leader

grew up watching Bill Cosby living behind his metaphorical “white picket fence.” “Well, that check bounced a long time ago,” he says. … He continues, reading from a worksheet. What are the four kinds of paternal authority? Moral, emotional, social, and physical. “But you ain’t none of those in that house. All you are is a paycheck, and now you ain’t even that. And if you try to exercise your authority, she’ll call 911. … You’re supposed to be the authority, and she says, ‘Get out of the house, bitch.’ She’s calling you ‘bitch’!” … “What is our role? Everyone’s telling us we’re supposed to be the head of a nuclear family, so you feel like you got robbed.” … He writes on the board: $85,000. “This is her salary.” Then: $12,000. “This is your salary. … Who’s the man now?” A murmur rises. “That’s right. She’s the man.”

This is not law enforcement. It is government indoctrination.

Rosin neglects to mention that none of the men in Kansas City has been convicted of any crime. They have not run afoul of police, prosecutors, and juries through the normal criminal-justice process. Instead, they are subject to welfare officials who exercise quasi-police and quasi-prosecutorial powers. They are brought—in what is sometimes described as an “expedited judicial process”—before a judge (or a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge-surrogate”) who may spend a few seconds glancing at some documents before entering orders to evict them from their homes, separate them from their children, confiscate their earnings, and sentence them to re-education or incarceration, all without the benefit of due process.

Attorney Jed Abraham calls this system of bureaucratic adjudication “Orwellian”: “To [enforce] child support, the government commands … a veritable gulag,” he writes in From Courtship to Courtroom. Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University agrees: “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support … have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.”

Preventing crime and aggression is evidently not what state-feminist ideology is all about: at its heart is economic redistribution and political power. Near the end of her article Rosin notes, quite approvingly, that “violence committed by middle-aged women [has] skyrocketed.” This is taken as a sign that “the more women dominate, the more they behave, fittingly, like the dominant sex.” Rosin references an ultraviolent Lady Gaga video that “rewrites Thelma and Louise as a story not about elusive female empowerment but about sheer, ruthless power. … She and her girlfriend kill a bad boyfriend and random others in a homicidal spree and then escape in their yellow pickup truck, Gaga bragging, ‘We did it, Honey B.’”

Rosin and her allies are more subtle—and most importantly, they have coercive state power at their disposal—but the bragging sounds remarkably similar.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 83 comments

83 Responses to Sexual Statism

Regarding the absence of fathers in so many inner city families, yes this has “empowered” women. However, most inner city neighborhoods are dysfunctional garbage dumps, despite the influx of trillions of dollars in government subsidies, and the main reason for this situation is the general absence of fathers.

Rosin’s triumphalism is disturbing and disgraceful, but she makes a valid point: men are becoming less and less competitive in the workforce. It’s a bizarre phenomenon which I believe, at its heart, is from the sexual revolution of the 1970’s combined with drug use. The cult of selfishness has wounded the father, perhaps mortally, and much of it is self-inflicted.

The ascent of women is merely a default occupation of professional space that men should be retaining.

Incidentally, much of her “statistics” are wrong. I don’t see how “janitor” is in the top 15 job categories. Her man-hate is obvious with that one…

Having seen with my own eyes the ‘fruits” of the “matriarchy” of the inner cities — grown men walking around with their pants drooping below thier waists, exposing their underwear in public, I find this “matriarchy” NOTHING to celebrate.

Black males like me, who grew up with a FATHER in the home, have the old fashioned notion that men who expose their butts in public are something less than the male ideal.
We also find it passing strange that a whole generation of “successful” women, having bought into the notion that men are not necessary, now lament the fact that not very many men are rushing to to marry them. Convinced of their own wonderfulness, they seem to be unable to comprehend why lots of men don’t share that opinion.

As a 19-year-old german girl told me in 1974:
“we believe in feminism in Europe; but we want to SHARE power; here, the women want to RULE”.

Bit of pyrrhic victory, given how the collapse of the US economy has gone hand in dainty hand with the rise of grrrl power. Men are withdrawing. Even if they still work, they are withdrawing their power, their creativity, their essence, as it were, from the machine. It’s kind of like Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” with a gender twist. Masculinity isn’t dead, it’s on strike.

Thank you, Professor, for answering this piece by Hanna Rosin, whose gloating over the tangible cultural power shift oozes from her article. That power-shift, fully facilitated by a crisis of moral political principle, prefers to spend millions on government-as-husband rather than roads and bridges, and produces 100,000 new, fatherless children each year in Pennsylvania alone.
Odd what Matriarchy hath brought, the poverty, the destruction;
How different the result,
from Mothers that claim to care,
but instead want to rule,
lonely children, purposeless and controlled;
Compared to hospitals and schools and advanced degrees,
thriving power, seeking to share.

One thing is very evident to this middle-aged man in Misandraic America: A Matriarchy that seeks to dominate men, rather than value or tolerate them, will find itself battling at home and abroad, and losing that which it values most–Love, relationship and security.

That’s why I find it hard to read Stephen Baskerville. Everything he says is too true. America has passed the point of no return. There is nothing to be saved here. It is time for real men to preserve a remnant of civilization and rebuild upon the wasted ruins.

As can seen throughout history, any matriarchal society has fallen prey to stronger male-dominated societies over time. A study conducted on the Yanamamu tribe in the Amazon shows that this women-headed tribe has been assimilated numerous times by male-headed tribes because they are physically incapable of defending themselves against the biologically stronger males.

You will begin to see the same thing happen in Europe and America if Shari’a law starts becoming more and more accepted. Women will become third-class citizens as men take more and more power under this Islamic law. With lesbians like Elena Kagan ascending positions of power like the US Supreme Court bench, and her propensity to embrace Shari’a law, women will eventually lose all rights under that type of society, and will be worse off than before suffragism.

“We must go back to our Bibles. The husband is the head of the wife just in so far as he is to her what Christ is to the Church. He is to love her as Christ loved the Church–read on–and give his life for her (Ephesians v:25). This headship then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him, is–in her own mere nature–least lovable. For the Church has no beauty but what the Bride-groom gives her; he does not find, but makes her, lovely. The chrism of this terrible coronation is to be seen not in the joys of any man’s marriage but in its sorrows, in the sickness and sufferings of a good wife or the faults of a bad one, in his unwearying (never paraded) care or his inexhaustible forgiveness: forgiveness, not acquiecence. As Christ sees in the flawed, proud, fanatical or lukewarm Church on earth that Bride who will one day be without spot or wrinkle, and labours to produce the latter, so the husband whose head-ship is Christ-like (and he is allowed no other sort) never despairs. He is a King Cophetua who after twenty years still hopes that the beggar girl will one day learn to speak the truth and wash behind her ears.

“To say this is not to say that there is any virtue or wisdom in making a marriage that involves such misery. There is no wisdom or virtue in seeking unnecessary martyrdom or deliberately courting persecution; yet it is, none the less, the persecuted or martyred Christian in whom the pattern of the Master is most unambiguously realised. So, in theses terrible marriages, once they have come about, the “headship” of the husband, if only he can sustain it, is most Christ-like.

“The sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it.”

Dr Baskerville sees the big picture. The police state in America is growing exponentially.

The “Woman’s Liberation Movement” was not funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to only bring equality to the fairer sex. “MS Magazine” and Gloria Steinem was not funded by the CIA to only give downtrodden women a voice. The real agenda was to tax women and to break up the family.

When the “National Organization for Women” published their “Family Court Report” some years back, the radical feminists accused the CA courts of corruption, since successful mothers were separated from their children in custody cases. Baskerville immediately responded in his article “NOW: Family Courts Not Corrupt Enough” stating “We do not need courts whose bread-and-butter derives from dissolving families”. http://www.gndzerosrv.com/Web%20Pages/basker_pages.htm#Title31

While some feminist intellectuals seem to be preoccupied with celebrating their rise to power, the American middle class is being flushed down the toilet and it is taking good mothers along for the ride.

The social research shows that 20 different social pathologies go up between 660% and 2,400% in sole custody homes where mothers rule the roost. See Fatherlessness Statistics at: http://www.FathersUnite.org. This has increasingly been destroying our children for several decades because it is profitable for lawyers and the states through federal matching funds for child support collections and billions in other social programs that are destructive. The checks and balances on government power have been virtually eliminated allowing an out of control, greedy judicial system to essentially evict fathers from their children’s lives using massive and growing police and state powers.The U.S. is doomed if this trend is not reversed. What is most shocking it is that it is mostly unconstitutional in the first place, created by women by doing an end run around real law via domestic “violence” and other bogus excuses that do not apply in 90% of the cases the laws are used in. These excuses are used to implement laws for the worst case scenario, then the system uses them in all cases to grab power and money. The older I get the smarter or founding fathers look. If the U.S. Constitution was properly respected this would all be impossible. Equality has been eliminated for the benefit of women, under the excuse of the benefit of children, which is a proven lie.

Matriarchy has been dominating the west for several decades
and does not look like stopping until it finally reaches the upper classes,presumably then it will be too late.Of course I am assuming that men do not particularly wish to become the lapdogs of society but,if they don’t I do not see any movement within their ranks denoting this to be the case,neither do I see any reason why male blogs should contradict the flow of authority from male to female,possibly even the opposite.
Would it not be better ,for men who feel strongly about this subject to start learning about Islam,meet some muslims
and actually go to the mosque.What would the government start to think if even 20% of men started to feel strongly that
this was the only recourse left to them because mateys,
nobody is listening to you and female sympathisers might as well be trolls because they sure as hell aren’t going to pick up your gun and play John Wayne for you
S

What you should be doing is enrolling yourself into muslim classes and changing that religion from the inside.If even 20% of men were to take an interest and start befriending muslims
the government might just get a teensy bit worried.
I have been following these kind of blogs for a long time now
and quite frankly ,without real action it would be better not
to write them,they add fuel to feminist demands and just give some person a starry persona.
Go along with your ideals and try to do something about it,
most of all don’t get into trouble for nothing.

Hah! Yet still, well over 90% of on-the-job related deaths are men. Men are the only ones willing to volunteer to do the dirty, the sloppy, the lethal work. As the great Fred Reed once said, “Without men, civilization would last until the oil needed changing.” Like it or not, ladies, men need women and women need men. The world would be a sad place with just one or the other.

It’s obvious to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that God has assigned different roles to men and women. Yet if the greatest aspiration of a woman is essentially to become a man then why do we need women? Seriously, I have no doubt there are many things that women do better than men by design, it’s just that most of them are not valued in this society.
Consider our society, do you really believe it to be healthy? Look at the levels of debt, divorce, or drug use. Speaking of drug use, imagine it was suddenly proved that drugs like Prozac have seriously unhealthy long-term side effect and were to be banned (I believe they do). Which gender would complain the loudest? We all know the answer to that.
Our society is tearing itself apart. Meanwhile, we seek to redesign the human race. All I can say is good luck…

Feminism has declared war against manhood. They are winning. However, they will pay the price when Kipling’s ‘Gods of the Copybook Headings’ come to call. The societies who are invading ours across the West are Latin American and Islamic. They still breed men, they still have their family systems intact, they still believe that there is something worth fighting for, and I expect that they will put us out of business, a la 5th Century Rome.
How many of the men whose families were broken by the State do you think are burning with patriotic fervor to defend a social order that makes them outlaws, steals their children, and treats them as if they bear blood guild by virtue of being male/ (Indeed, our prisons, home to the outcasts of innder-city matriarchy, are breeding grounds for Wahabi and Nation of Islam proselytizing.)
The only groups of Caucasians who have intact families and who reproduce at or above replacement rates are the Amish and the Mormons. Perhaps their historians will analyze our deserved fall someday as they stand amidst the ruins of our civilization.

“Men are withdrawing. Even if they still work, they are withdrawing their power, their creativity, their essence, as it were, from the machine. It’s kind of like Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” with a gender twist. Masculinity isn’t dead, it’s on strike.”

Manliness is not dead yet. The vast majority of woman don’t want to conquer or dominate men, they want manly men and are attracted to both cultural and instinctual forms of masculinity. As for Feminist Intellectuals…they range from femenazi man-haters to smart, educated women who are just sick of being burdened with what they feel are quaint, conventional gender norms of a residual Patriarchy. Lets face it, for a long time, women in the western world were oppressed by men and the power that men controlled exclusively. The fact that we have more gender equality under the law today is a good thing.

There’s no question that the surrogate provider role the government has undertaken is not good for family cohesion or the economy–but how is this different from any other formally private institution the government has gradual usurped? Of course it will become a self-sustaining amoral extortion racket.

As some other commentators have mentioned though, we can’t lay the blame for the “decline of manliness” on the government alone. It could be argued that the government filled a vacuum. While there are structural economic reasons why its so much more difficult for a man to be the Head of the Household today…The principles of responsibility and sacrifice as cultural values have experienced a constant devaluation over the years. As my own father says, there is no Shame anymore…the powerful lie and cheat with impunity in full public view and get away with it…if you play by the “rules” you’re a sucker. Shame is a potent social regulator and without it things tend to go to hell.

Anti-family feminsim is just another flavor of Marxism, albeit the most successful form in America today.

The essence of Marxism is to define a victim group and an oppressor group in order to increase government control over every aspect of people’s lives. The idea is that you judge people based on the color of their skin, their sex, their income level (classic Marxism), their religion, sexual proclivities, or anything else you can conjure up to divide them against each other, and wherever possible do not judge them based on the content of their character, facts, evidence, due process, etc.

The people who are designated as oppressed victims and are willing to have their liberty usurped in order to qualify as a member of a victim/oppressed group, or are so thoroughly brainwashed by the ideology that they promote it with no readily discernable benefit to themselves, are referred to as “useful idiots”.

When a particular group can do nothing wrong based on allegedly being part of an oppressed group, and accordingly the so-called oppressor group can do nothing right based on their group membership, eventually the useful idiots among them begin to believe they are superior and the oppressor group is unworthy of equal treatment under color of law or in more extreme cases, such as feminist idealogy today, basic human rights.

Historically, once the transition from a free society to a Marxist society is complete, tens of millions of people need to be exterminated by the Marxist leaders in order to consolidate their power, leaving only the useful idiots and the extremely fearful to live their pitiful lives as servants to the state. It does not matter whether free thinking people or useful idiots are exterminated as long as the point is made that free thinking will not be tolerated.

Of course there are those in the tiny ruling class who live opulently at the expense of widespread misery among all others, but even if you have no morality or conscience your chances of being part of this group are extremely small and typically based on birthright.

Instead of judging others, I suggest you quietly decide what your role will be, with particular emphasis on what sort of lives you want for your descendants should you have any.

What was that famous comment from that typically disgusting feminist whose name I can’t be bothered to remember? “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. A bicycle is a beautifully elegant and efficient piece of machinery designed for and by the highest intelligence in creation. A fish is an inherently stupid and limited species from way back in evolution whose sole justification is being part of the food chain and could not in any way make sense of a bicycle. You might as well also say that a woman needs a man like a culturally-illterate, stone-deaf, tone-deaf, retarded quadriplegic needs a cathedral organ.

Come on,J Braunstein,
Of course women were oppressed if by that you mean that they were never to be held to account and were therefore largely ignored in the big decisions,now they make all the big decisions,ignored at peril and are still unaccountable.
Manliness is dying because it is un PC and against feminine doctrine.
In my long lifetime I have known many men who earned less than their wives and children but,they had an innate sense of authority and were clearly the head of the household.Money should not be allowed to dictate.It is who uses it that is important not who makes it,that can change overnight.
At the moment ,In most households it is the woman who is the manager and consequently the boss nevermind who earns what,that is what men need to take back,the managing
and the responsibility,if,as you say women are really looking
for manly men this should not be a problem.
My suggestion that men look to a religion and set of countries which afford them and give them the right to be manly would at least suggest to western so called democratic countries that they mean business.I certainly am not suggesting that all muslim laws should be taken up piecemeal,I suggest that they could be modified for the country concerned and hopefully,the muslim people will also
accept the moderation and then terrorism may become a thing of the past because the divisions will not be as great.
A showdown must come at some point,a
point which obviously will not be in the west’s favour.Why not take the bull by the horns and show we are not all a bunch of
“pinkos”

As women increasingly take up positions in the service industry, and perceive this to be a victory of some sorts, they appear to be oblivious to the fact this type of industry creates zero wealth. In other words we are living off our capital and it cannot continue indefinitly. The post industrial economy is headed towards global bankruptcy as dirty hands go out of fashion.

Take Afganistan for example, a country with plentiful resouces of precious minerals including lithium. For Afganistan to enjoy great services, someone will have to extract the lithium and export it. Teachers may be in demand but someone will have to get their hands dirty to pay for them.

But this is plain old commonsense that most people understand, with the exception of the feminists. The west can afford an army of psychotherapists, but they are being paid from the wealth created generations ago and we are going rapidly into the red.

Thanks to the redfems, who to be fair have been tricked and sold a lie, our civilisation is dying – and the feminist movement will die with it when they wake up and realise just what they have done to our boys.

Who the heck reads The Atlantic? Hannag Rosin’s preaching to her own ilk of non-productive parasites in any case. Who does she think she’s kidding? The black women in the inner city who clean her people’s toilets? Those women won’t forget what Hannah Rosin and her kind have done to their men.

As one who has had the ‘pleasure’ of being the recipient of an Order of Protection, evicted, thrown in the street, and financially ruined (chapter 7 bankruptcy), I think I can say that I’ve lived through the worst Kafka-esque nightmare ever. And I’m not even divorced yet – still trying to get through that.

I am of the opinion that the best way to solve the problem is for men to generally step back, re-assess the way that we approach living with women culturally and stop making financial commitments in the form of marriage contracts. We are already in the process of re-defining what marriage means anyway. Let the train wreck of feminism run its course – nothing says we have to participate.

Women are also empowered through feminist jurisprudence to make false rape/sexual harassment/domestic violence claims with near impunity. While valid, extant claims are horrible crimes, false rape/sexual harassment/domestic violence claims are also horrible crimes. It is a civil and human rights issue, and in the US, is ultimately a Constitutional issue. We must be careful in the current discussion of repealing the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution to stop illegal immigration, because the 14th Amendment, especially the Section 1, also contains provisions for equal protection of the laws. By eliminating the equal protection clause, the current rape shield laws and Violence Against Women Act would grant women and children special elite status in the US as there would be no more Constitutional checks against the rights, privileges and powers granted by such laws and acts.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution Section 1:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

What would the lives of American men and boys be with due process and equal protection of the laws (which have already been eroded significantly by child protection laws, rape shield laws, and VAWA). By saying this, I am NOT implying that women and children are undeserving or unworthy of men’s protection and safety and the color of law, but that such laws and acts previously mentioned create an inequality when applied and violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (and sometimes the due process rights) for boys and men. Ever since the passing of the 14th Amendment in 1868, we continue to deal with racial and gender prejudice and mob mentality, but now our problems stem not only from the opprobrium of those who rush to judgment but also from the very corrective measures originally designed to bring equality and end prejudice. To afford the rights of one group at the expense of the rights of another group is a violation of our Constitutional protections and guarantees.

There are news stories every day of false rape claims made against boys and men (and occasionally women). These stories are discussed in detail at False Rape Society (FRS) http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com — they receive little coverage in the mainstream media, and those most at risk (boys and men) are largely unaware of the false rape claim issue and the impact it has on the entire society and culture. Take the time to read through the FRS site in its entirety. You may not agree with every comment you find there, but at least you’ll be aware of the issue.

From Feminism to Fascism. Or am I being redundant? Feminism is Marxism in drag. It is “political theory” as a means to an end: the rise of the tyrannical state and the abolition of the heterosexual white Christian male, the progenitor of the cultural norms of the former USA. It is an arm of the Antonio Gramsci stealth attack on the culture to bring revolution (permanent) from within. The white male has been under attack for over two generations because if you want to destroy a country, you destroy those who created its greatness. It wasn’t the female population that strengthened and grew America and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool. While the men are being trampled to death, they are ground into dirt by the harridans screaming even still of oppression. We are not supposed to ask the logical question: if this oppression is so pervasive and at the hands of the masculine “enemy” how it is so much has been achieved and who paid the price? It’s time all men fought back and take back what was wrenched from them. It’s time to start acting like…..MEN.

What a bunch of wimps! Crybabies. Let us all become MUSLIMS now because they are real men who are not afraid of FEMINISTS. Let’s circumcise our daughters, destroy our Churches, veil our women, let’s ban Classical Music…. No wonder feminism has “won” the day with the wimps who call themselves Christians today. In other words, the so-called RESPONSIBLE sex, the so-called leaders of the family, the ones who created Western Civilization all by themselves – their mothers, sisters, daughters, wives had nothing to do with the creation of the WEST – want to convert to Islam so that they can preserve Christian Civilization.

Feminists won because there were no men fighting for their women. And in the end, the men got the women they deserve.

If only men created the West then it is merely reasonable and logical that women start behaving like men, that they should imitate men, so that women also can contribute in the creation of a great Civilization. Women should stop wasting their time and energy having children, changing diapers, cooking, cleaning, canning, sewing, knitting, and being stupid and simple housewives and instead concentrate their time and energy creating with their brilliant husbands great art and culture. Women have contributed nothing to Western Civilization. Can you imagine how much further ahead we would be right now! … Wait a minute… conservatives sounding just like the very feminists they claim they despise… In the words of the great Scythe: It wasn’t the female population that strengthened and grew America and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

You tell them tiger. Spit on your mother.

A little footnote… who created Western Civilization… the Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation?

Sites like this are good. Men need to wake up and see what is happening. We are being led and are willfully following, like in the Pied Piper. We have been so brainwashed into believing every “Woman as Victim” story it has clouded our vision. Spread the word guys. This is the only way we are going to level the playing field.

In reading the article and the responses from what I am assuming are mostly men, can I make an observation, ask some questions, and make a few suggestions? It seems to me that many men are angry about the power that women have assumed in the last few decades, but I wonder why it has to be an us vs. them mentality. Is it really that demeaning to men when women assert their equality and independence? Should women be expected to achieve less because men are choosing not to? If men are losing ground, isn’t it time for them to step up and take responsibility for their own failures and stop blaming it on women? If I don’t get a job that I want, I don’t blame it on the other applicants, I blame it on myself for not being sufficiently qualified, or for not doing my homework to get it! Get educated, work harder, make yourself competitive out there. But don’t blame others for your failures. That’s pathetic.

If there are problems with the family courts, perhaps the laws should be changed? For example, in my state, the laws are written so that both parents of a child are considered the joint natural guardians of that child. Even upon divorce, joint custody is the default until one party or the other proves that it should be different. So, there is already a preference in the law for shared parenting situations and the courts often order or recommend the parties to attend a workshop dedicated to teaching parents how to successfully co-parent (i.e., focus on the child’s interests and not on the arguments that exist between the adults!). Do some people abuse the system? Absolutely. But as an attorney, I see it done every day by people of both sexes. I see women who try to keep the fathers of their children from seeing them and I also see fathers try to shirk their responsibility to their children. I see men who think that paying child support for their children is unfair, but who also aren’t willing to take primary responsibilty for their kids. They view child support as money paid to the ex instead of as money used to support their children. My daughter’s father and I split when she was 8. We were never married, so we didn’t have to go through the divorce process. We managed to work out a co-parenting schedule and child support obligations without involving the courts. During the years that our daughter lived primarily with me, he paid a reasonable amount of child support for her care. During the years that she lived primarily with him, I paid the child support. The number one biggest problem that I see is immature adults who don’t know how to set aside their personal issues for the sake of their kids.

Finally, I think this last point is a very important one. It may be true that women are superficially attracted to the “alpha male type,” at least when it comes to youthful dating. But when a woman starts thinking about the man she wants to marry and have children with, she wants a man who will respect her, love her, treat her as an equal, support her dreams and ambitions just as she supports his. She does not want a “head of the house” kind of mentality from her partner. No one likes to be controlled and told what to do and what not to do. All people like to be respected. Women don’t hate men, even feminist women. They just don’t want to be treated like children by men.

I have a hard time understanding why some men feel threatened by the progress made by women. I think both sexes need to be more careful when choosing a marriage partner and to seek someone with common values and goals. But the outdated idea of men in charge, whether in the home or in the world of work, has got to go. Women deserve to be at the same table with men and treated as equals in all walks of life. This does not mean that men lose. It means that we ALL win.

Carol: you are parrotting the lies that allowed feminism to ascend to power. Lies about women only wanting “equality” and “respect”, and being able to “share”. Lies about men simply having to try harder, and they can get everything they want from our current society, as if there were a nice, level playing field for all. Lies about women not hating men “even feminists”.

Lies that make you a very useful idiot indeed.

Are you capable of breaking out of that mindset by actually hearing what Stephen Baskerville – and an increasing number of men – are saying?

@Carol: “I have a hard time understanding why some men feel threatened by the progress made by women”. I have a hard time understanding why a feminist (Rosin) and the Atlantic would gleefully title an article “The End of Men”, given that we all know feminists “don’t hate men” and “only (sniff) want to be respected”.

Wow guys, with the bitter tone of your responses and your need to belittle my comments, it’s no wonder you are losing the game these days. The better title of the Rosin article might have been “The End of Machismo” or “The End of Hyper-Masculinity” or perhaps even “The End of Violence, Greed and Control Disguised as American Masculinity.” I worked my way up from poverty to success, I worked hard on my education, and I have worked hard at every job that I’ve ever had. And I don’t blame others when I don’t get what I want. Voila! The keys to the kingdom. Either evolve and adapt or watch “your kind” become extinct. It’s totally your choice. Because women don’t want to go back into the kitchen and nor do they want to go back under any man’s thumb.

As for this useful idiot, I think I’ll go back to enjoying the life that I worked my ass off to achieve, while you guys cry in your coffee and hate women.